If you think perhaps Mickelson is being a bit of a baby for threating [sic] to end a career that’s earned him a spot on this list of 10 wealthiest athletes on the planet because of some tax increases, understand that he’s getting hit on the state level, too. In November, California passed Proposition 30, which increases the top income tax rate on resident millionaires to 13.3%, a drain on Mickelson’s take-home pay that may force him to sell his 9,500 square foot mansion and flee his home state in search of more friendly pastures.

Do Americans care whether Phil Mickelson lives in the United States or not? It's hardly the equivalent of Gerard Depardieu and France. Or is it? Maybe I'm not getting America's attachment to its athletes.

Which, if any, Americans are in a position to protest — effectively protest — taxes by threatening to leave the country? Threatening to leave a state seems more plausible. I would think there are a lot of athletes in team sports who could let it be known they are taking taxes into account, but presumably that's all haggled over in private negotiations. A team in a high-tax state is going to have to put up more money than a team in a low-tax state. It really is the golfer — the athlete in business for himself — who has some choices about where to live. But other than the one-off character Tiger Woods, America doesn't care about golfers.

The bigger issue is that taxing the highest earners in any field at confiscatory rates is going to reduce economic expansion which is going to immiserate millions which THE LEFT WANTS. The name of the game is dependency. Obama is peachy keen with a permanently taxed to its knees private sector and a gangbusters public sector.

You really don't know much about tax law, do you? Unless Phil Michelson renounces his U.S. citizenship, he has to pay U.S. taxes on his foreign earned income (the first 80 or 90 K is exempt from taxes, but that doesn't take Mickelson long to earn). Also, since he plays mostly in the U.S., the IRS doesn't care where he lives, they just care where the money is earned.

Mickelson probably pays somewhere in the 60% range with state taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. This while half of Americans pay no income tax.

Not only is this probably not true but it is dishonest. You lump all of Mikelson's taxes together and then compare it to only income taxes of Americans making $50,000 or less. Of course those Americans also pay state income taxes, sales tax, gas taxes and often property taxes (if not directly, then indirectly). And of course the biggest single tax on less well off Americans is FICA, which at Mickelson's salary is insignificant.

To compensate, will tournaments in the highest tax states have to offer even bigger purses to the winners, typically those with the largest incomes, probably at the expense of the struggling pro golfers who barely make the cut?

The left's focus on income tax rates when they whip up class warfare resentment against "the rich" really only impacts folk like athletes and entertainers....people who make a very high salary subject to income tax.

Meanwhile, the truly rich like Warren Buffett have very little income to tax. They have assets, and assets are not taxed via the income tax.

Of course Buffett will shill for higher income taxes on folks like Mickelson. Warren won't be paying it.

Q. How do you balance that against the TOUR's retirement plan which by all standards is the best retirement plan in sports?

PHIL MICKELSON: I don't understand. What do you mean?

Q. Well, I mean I understand the 60 percent part of the equation, but in the TOUR's plan, you guys put about as much money aside as you want. It's treated differently under tax laws than most anybody else's tax plans. Where most people can only put away $45,000 or $50,000, you guys can put as much away as you want. And so at the end you guys end up with a much larger pot of gold than most people can.

PHIL MICKELSON: But when it comes out, it's still taxed at the same 62 percent rate.

Q. Well, you're still making that kind of money. That's if you're still in that bracket.

This stuff is the warming water on the frog. Leftists think that, sure a few crazy people will "go Gault" and stop producing jobs and revenue, but over all most will continue on and we will be fine.

What is, has, and will continue to happen is exactly what you see today. An economic down turn that just won't turn around with any vigor. This recession should have been history two years ago, and not just in some highly refined statistic, but to everyone in an obvious way. That's how they used to turn around, hard, fast and strong in under 2 years. Our current condition is pretty much as good as it gets now. The bar has been lowered, the water is nice and warm.

Many states are doing exceptionally well, mostly those not run by leftists for decades. The rest are floundering, and stale. Many people in the stale places think everything is fine.

Meanwhile, the truly rich like Warren Buffett have very little income to tax. They have assets, and assets are not taxed via the income tax.

Limbaugh keeps saying that but he's wrong.

The income of assets is taxed at income tax rates when the asset earns it.

It's not taxed again when the asset pays it out to Buffet at ordinary rates, but it's already been taxed at ordinary rates. It shouldn't be taxed again at any rate. The 15% cap gain or dividend rate was a political compromise for the correct zero rate.

If you drive rich people out because you decide to sock it to them it's not as if they can't go elsewhere.Thus, not only do you not get the extra taxes you don't get the current taxes either (talking about state at this point). And if he decides to stop competing then we're talkiing income and you won't get his income taxes either since he wont have one.Way to go.

A lot of the public have gotten comfortable with slow growth and malaise, as a psychological trade off for avoiding disaster. This is an old and well worn route to disaster, but old enough for a lot of people to not see it for what it is.

Seeing Red wrote:It's not taxed again when the asset pays it out to Buffet at ordinary rates, but it's already been taxed at ordinary rates. It shouldn't be taxed again at any rate. The 15% cap gain or dividend rate was a political compromise for the correct zero rate.

How about someone like Steve Jobs who earned a single dollar in salary but got all of his salary through tax options

Why are you being such an asshole? Read the article asshole. He's talking about retiring.

Because you continually ponder things that display your ignorance that if you did the least bit of research or possessed general knowledge (in this case of tax law) you would know are silly.

You posited: Which, if any, Americans are in a position to protest — effectively protest — taxes by threatening to leave the country? Threatening to leave a state seems more plausible.

The answer is very few unless you are willing to renounce your U.S. citizenship. Most reasonably intelligent people know that. This is especially true of professional athletes who compete mostly in the U.S.

Why are you being such a jerk when I point out that you do not know what you are talking about?

bagoh20 wrote:That's how they used to turn around, hard, fast and strong in under 2 years. Our current condition is pretty much as good as it gets now. The bar has been lowered, the water is nice and warm.

THey usually turn around in two years because presidents decide to push pro growth policies, not pro govt growth policies. Obama never even really attempted to push recovery. He just changed the name of govt spending on liberal interest groups and ideas to "recovery plan". When there were no green jobs, no shovel ready jobs and very little jobs of any kind (other than govt union jobs).

It's not taxed again when the asset pays it out to Buffet at ordinary rates, but it's already been taxed at ordinary rates.

That may be true of dividends (which at least theoretically are a distribution of profits to shareholders) but it is not true in the gain earned from selling stocks or property. That is money that has not been taxed.

Even the Beatles recognized the Taxman was evil (he's going to tax the pennies on your eye when you die, and tax the streets when you walk on them for gods sakes) and they were all lefty peace and love. Though, it was George Harrison and he was the weird one.

And this was back in the 60's. Libs keep talking about how progressive they are, but if we are talking about lessons not learned in the 60's, how progressive are the ideas really?

Clearly the government will do more good with that 62% of Mickelson's income than he would have. He'd only invest and buy stuff and employ people with it. But California needs that money for state pensions and to put towards that $55 billion dollar bullet train that nobody will use.

Even the Beatles recognized the Taxman was evil (he's going to tax the pennies on your eye when you die, and tax the streets when you walk on them for gods sakes) and they were all lefty peace and love. Though, it was George Harrison and he was the weird one.

Sheesh, that was when the income tax rate in the U.K. was well over 90% (and the top U.S. rate at the time was 70%). Top marginal rates in this country, even at 39%, are historically low.

Hmm... Don't forget to add a nearly 10% sales tax, and who knows what kind of special taxes he pays when he's at "tourist location hotels" And I'm sure he tips 20% when he eats at nice restaurants, which I'm sure he always does. I wouldn't know about any religious affiliation, so I cant guess if he tithes, or pledges money to charities, But I'm betting that from his perspective he takes home about 10% of his actual earnings. Now lets compare him to a public servant like VP Biden.. Makes far less in income, but in actuality pays for virtually nothing, lives like a king, and gives less than 1% to charity.

Freder income tax taxes income.If you have no income because you are retired you wont get taxed on it. I'm not sure if leaving the country would even be required since he's not actually earning anything. But raising the state taxes like California just did, requiring him to potentially sell his house, I can assure you that he would have a better life in a state that isn't so blue. As such, why wouldn't he and countless others facing the same problem not uproot and go there?

Also, if he is retired and lives in a foreign country what INCOME would the US take from him in taxes?

Please then stupid shit point out where Ann said anyone, especially Phil Michelson, is leaving the country without renouncing their citizenship.

I already did. But since you are particularly dense and need to read things several times before it sinks in, I will do it again, just for you.

Do Americans care whether Phil Mickelson lives in the United States or not? It's hardly the equivalent of Gerard Depardieu and France. Or is it? Maybe I'm not getting America's attachment to its athletes.

Which, if any, Americans are in a position to protest — effectively protest — taxes by threatening to leave the country?

And I'm really sick and tired of the "top marginal rate used to be this or that argument" Because when it was that high, no one ever paid it. Standing beside that "top rate of 90%" were a dual set of tax laws that made it possible to avoid paying it. The only way anyone ever paid 90% was if a million dollars fell out of the sky and landed in their lap, and they didn't have sense enough to hire a tax lawyer to shelter it...

It is indeed difficult for Americans to pull a Depardieu when it comes to federal taxes. What surprises me is how may Mickelson's there are that maintain their primary residence in high tax states. Avoiding state tax by Depardieuing to Florida is a no brainer.

And while he won't garner much sympathy from anyone, Mickelson's plight is the same as anyone facing higher marginal rates. His incentive to go out and work- to be productive, is reduced by a higher marginal rate. Everyone, whether they know it or not, deals with Mickelson's dilemma on some level. Two income households with small children in daycare are highly sensitive to chages in marginal rates like this...

And I'm really sick and tired of the "top marginal rate used to be this or that argument"

Amen to this. If you want to compare taxes over eras, the more accurate way is to compare effective tax rates. Total tax burden matters, too. Not just federal taxes or state taxes looked at in isolation.

Colonel wrote:I would have less of an issue being subjected to those historically low tax rates if almost have the wage earners were kicking in their so called fair share as opposed to the zip they pay now.

Exactly. EVERYONE has to pay their fair share. Isn't that what Obama has been arguing since day one? So why does a huge percentage of the population not have skin in the game? Especially since they are the ones that the programs we have to pay extra in taxes to fund are for.

Clearly the issue is govt spending too much and taking in too little. But if the issue REALLY were revenue Obama could get alot more money if he raised taxes on the top 50% instead of the top 2%. The only problem with that is the top 50% would all become tea partiers asking why their taxes were so high. So Obama and the dems have to resort to demagoguery and pretend that their solution will actually solve problems while kicking the real problem down the road for the next president to deal with.

I already did. But since you are particularly dense and need to read things several times before it sinks in, I will do it again, just for you.

Oh, I see, in your quick desire to show us how "smart" you are - after all, you regular post easily debunked lies here and link to things that do not say what you claim they did - you made an inference based on what Ann wrote.

That may be true of dividends (which at least theoretically are a distribution of profits to shareholders) but it is not true in the gain earned from selling stocks or property. That is money that has not been taxed.

Ah but the company has a choice whether to distribute profits or retain them as investment in the company. Those that are retained show up as capital gains when the stock is sold; those that are paid out show up as dividend income.

The dividend and cap gain rates were made the same for exactly the reason that you don't want tax law to favor one business practice over the other, in a surprising move making economic sense.

Of course in a sane world both would be zero.

Selling property usually has a gain that is purely inflation, so really ought not to be taxed at all either. It's not reinvestment gain butm government irresponsibility gain.

Oh, I see, in your quick desire to show us how "smart" you are - after all, you regular post easily debunked lies here and link to things that do not say what you claim they did - you made an inference based on what Ann wrote.

If one renounces their U.S. citizenship, they are by definition, no longer American.

I read the article and I didn't see anything about Phil saying r was leaving the US. My guess is he'll follow Tiger, who grew up in Southern California and move to Florida or Texas. Phil has a lot of money and US tax law is such that if he leaves the country with over 2.5 million in assets, he's going to get hit with a huge tax bill from the Feds. His best bet to move to a warm, year-round golf state with low or zero income taxes. And thank God there are some.

The entire point of this situation is that he was going to buy into a group to purchase the San Diego Padres and it sounds like he's not going to do that now.

Personally, I think taxpayers should vote with their feet and move from state to state or city to city to get the lowest tax rate. My grandmother aways told me its not only my right but also my duty to pay as little in taxes as legally possible!

Some few folks my go Galt, but many more go Gator. Do you think Tiger Woods lives in Florida because he likes it so much more than he likes California? At some point that several-million-dollar hit looks like real money. It has nothing to do with whether you're an ass, it has to do with financial incentive. Should we pretend that financial incentive doesn't matter for really rich people? Or is the point that we wish really rich people would ignore financial incentive, so we can tax them some more?

Freder, we are running a trillion dollar annual deficit. Liberal democrats like Chuck schumer are clamoring for more taxes. When almost half the wage earners are exempted from Federal income tax, that means it will have to come from somewhere, and that means higher taxes, either through increasing the historically low marginal rates or through some other source.

The conclusion is written, higher taxes are a necessity, its just the playbook hasn't been hashed out.

Renouncing US citizenship will trigger an exit tax under some conditions. (Tied to income, net worth and some other things.)

If the tax applies -- and it probably would in the case of high net worth individuals -- the IRS deems all your assets to be sold for fair market value and you owe tax on the resultant computed income.

Kenneth Dart is one of the heirs to a multibillion-dollar Styrofoam-cup manufacturing business based in Sarasota, Fla. In 1994, he renounced his citizenship and moved to Belize, a small Central American country known as a tax haven.

Belize promptly sought U.S. permission to open a consulate in Sarasota with Dart as its consul. Foreign diplomats are exempt from U.S. taxes, so the move would have allowed Dart to avoid U.S. taxes while continuing to live here.

As a non us citizen, it's difficult to remain in the US for more than 120 days a year without scrutiny. Becoming a diplomat would have allowed Dart to live in the US full time while continuing to avoid US taxation. That's how you go Galt...

The plan earned a "chutzpah" award from the late humorist Art Buchwald, but it was rejected by the State Department, which said Belize already was well represented in Florida with a consulate in Miami.

Former President Clinton, who was in office when Dart renounced his citizenship, was so appalled by Dart's action that 10 years later he refused to go to a political fundraiser because it was being held at the Dart mansion, owned and occupied by Dart's wife.

Thanks to Mr. Dart, people turning in their US citizenship now face substantial exit taxes, among other difficulties.

People don't generally sit still while their (self-interested) government and neighbors pick them clean.

The highly productive and the young will make other decisions- either to work at lower levels or to move on. Its just the way things are. And its why high taxation generally leads to lower tax receipts for the government and a lower growth rate for the country.

Many prominent professional athletes spend the offseason (i.e., the majority of the year) in no income tax states like Florida and earn their endorsement income there. As I understand it, the tax considerations with respect to their salaries is basically a wash, as they have to file a state income tax return for each state in which they play games. So a player on a Texas or Florida team will still have to pay some state income tax, though what he will owe will be less since at least half his games will be in no income tax states.

Well if you are going to retire and your income drops to zero (you cash in all your savings and put it in your mattress), you won't owe any income taxes anyway.

Yes, and that's what Mickelsen is saying he will do. Rather than pay that rate he just wont work any more. He can do it as he's already earned a nice living and doesn't have to earn a paycheck to live.So the policy would in effect drive someone who was paying a lot in taxes to someone paying nothing in taxes. He wasn't paying his fair share and now he'll be paying NO share.

Interestingly, and contrary to popular belief, Federal revenue continued to rise despite the Bush tax cuts.

How is this contrary to popular belief? Can you provide links that claim revenues dropped in the Bush years? I certainly didn't think they did. Any reasonably intelligent person will recognize that you can reduce rates and still increase revenues because the economy is growing.

The question is whether tax cuts pay for themselves (i.e., the increased economic growth as a result of the tax cut makes up for the revenue lost by reduced rates). There is very little evidence that at the current marginal rates, this happens.

Rather than pay that rate he just wont work any more. He can do it as he's already earned a nice living and doesn't have to earn a paycheck to live.

Well good for him. It's not as if the money he would have earned is going to be removed from the economy. Somebody else is going to win the money he would have won if he wasn't so burdened and put upon.

This is valid. Lowering marginal tax rates increases the incentive to work, save and invest. Raising marginal rates reduces the incentive. People respond to incentives.

Europe has been doing the experimenting for us.

I don't think your link demonstrates what you think it does. It is much easier for a rich European to avoid taxes in his home country. European nations on the whole do not tax foreign earned income and Europeans can pretty much live in any country the EU they want to without giving up their citizenship in their home country or "immigrating" to the new one.

Well good for him. It's not as if the money he would have earned is going to be removed from the economy. Somebody else is going to win the money he would have won if he wasn't so burdened and put upon.

So then why are the left pissed off at people like Depardieu. He took his money and moved elsewhere. Some other person will be paid what he wasn't and therefore taxes will still be paid.And yes, someone might win the money, but they may not be living in CA when they do, so the taxes will not go to CA like they would now.

Some other person will be paid what he wasn't and therefore taxes will still be paid.

True, especially since Depardieu primarily worked in the heavily government subsidized French film industry. France will still subsidize its film industry. Presumably, Depardieu will no longer be able to avail himself of that subsidy.

Any reasonably intelligent person will recognize that you can reduce rates and still increase revenues because the economy is growing.

My apologies. On numerous occassions I have read on this forum and elsewhere that you can't increase revenue by cutting taxes.

The question is whether tax cuts pay for themselves (i.e., the increased economic growth as a result of the tax cut makes up for the revenue lost by reduced rates). There is very little evidence that at the current marginal rates, this happens.

Don't they pay for themselves by the pure fact that revenues are higher than before the cuts? How can you argue revenue is lost when its higher than before the cuts?

According to the tax policy center, Fed revenue in 2001 was 1,991 followed by 2002 1,8532003 1,7822004 1,8802005 2,153.62006 2,406.92007 2,5682008 2,524

So, at first glance, I would say yes, they paid for themselves. I don't think anyone would argue the economy wasn't growing. The problem is that we are simply outspending by huge margins. We are spending $2 trillion more each year than in 2000.

Soviet Russia solved this problem by making it illegal to leave and sending people to work camps and making them work for free—sometimes to death. Of course, dead people don’t pay taxes and using graduate level physicists to chop down trees is not really an efficient use of resources.

BTW, social security, pensions, and some other retirement benefits are taxed as income. I know because I am paying it.

To help offset the cost of providing health insurance to millions of Americans, the new law imposes an additional 0.9% Medicare tax on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. In addition, for higher-income households, the new law adds a 3.8% tax on unearned income, including interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income.Higher Medicare tax on wages and self-employment income. The Medicare tax is the primary source of financing for Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund, which pays hospital bills for beneficiaries who are 65 and older or disabled.Under current law, wages are subject to a 2.9% Medicare tax. Workers and employers pay 1.45% each. Self-employed people pay both halves of the tax (but are allowed to deduct half of this amount for income tax purposes).Unlike the payroll tax for Social Security, which applies to earnings up to an annual ceiling ($106,800 for 2010), the Medicare tax is levied on all of a worker's wages without limit.

"Michael Douglas & CZJ were spending most of their time in I think it was Bermuda, raising their kids there.

Bermuda is very tax-friendly.

So did they pay US taxes or were they citizens of Bermuda and didn't pay their fair share?"

Michael's mother (Diana Dill) is Bermudian, and he has "Bermudian Status" (note, not citizenship, which is really difficult to obtain) as a result of being born to her in the US. Yes, Michael and CZJ did raise their kids there until a couple of years ago - I believe when his cancer surfaced. I'm not sure what the tax situation is/was for him when he was a resident there.

Freder Frederson said... The question is whether tax cuts pay for themselves (i.e., the increased economic growth as a result of the tax cut makes up for the revenue lost by reduced rates). There is very little evidence that at the current marginal rates, this happens

It is so cute when people like you look for "evidence"

Kind of like the belief that increased numbers of firearms (and decreased regulation of firearms) leads to violence.

You have all sorts of "evidence" for that in America I bet.

PS: were revenues higher after the Bush tax cuts than before they were enacted? Yes, yes they were.

But you carry on about "Paying for themselves" as if it is some sort of serious question.

Don't they pay for themselves by the pure fact that revenues are higher than before the cuts?

Umm, no. First you have to figure what percentage of the growth was due to the tax cuts. If growth would have been the same without the tax cuts, then the tax cuts have not paid for themselves.

Think of it this way. A tax cut causes the economy to grow by 1% more than it would have without the cut. If the economy grows by 4% (1% + 3% with or without the cuts), then the cut would not have paid for itself (tax revenues would have been higher if the rates had not been reduced because growth would have still been 3%, but taxed at a higher rate).

Umm, no. First you have to figure what percentage of the growth was due to the tax cuts. If growth would have been the same without the tax cuts, then the tax cuts have not paid for themselves

That's fascinating. How, pray tell do you know if growth would have been the same without the tax cuts?

I'm not an economist but I can look at the numbers and see that after 2003, revenue steadily rose. How that compared to GDP I don't know but it would seem your argument is based upon the assumption revenues would have risen without the cuts. Aside from having access to a parallel dimension device, I'm at a loss as to how you conclude as such.

Revenue fell after the 9/11 attacks and the corresponding tech bubble burst. Under what assumption would growth and revenue follow the same upward track leaving tax rates were they were prior to the cuts?

Update #1: The Daily Beast, Should People Who Make $250,000 a Year Worry About Obama's Tax Proposals?, by Megan McArdle:

Kevin Drum and Dave Weigel take off after rich people who don't understand that they only pay marginal tax rates on the extra dollars they earn above taxation thresholds. "This isn't true, of course. Obama is only proposing to raise tax rates on income over $250,000, so if your income goes up to $251,000, you only pay the higher rate on the extra $1,000. The tax bill on your first $250,000 stays exactly the same."

Their analysis is basically sound, except for the fact that it is not quite true. They have forgotten to look at deduction phaseouts, surtaxes, and the AMT, which are not taxes on marginal income. No matter what you have heard on the internet, there are in fact a lot of sizeable marginal inflection points for high earners....

I've put together a handy graphic showing you what income levels trigger deduction phaseouts or surtaxes. The red line shows you where the phaseout is complete--i.e., where the deduction completely disappears.

I'm not an economist but I can look at the numbers and see that after 2003, revenue steadily rose. How that compared to GDP I don't know but it would seem your argument is based upon the assumption revenues would have risen without the cuts. Aside from having access to a parallel dimension device, I'm at a loss as to how you conclude as such.

Back in the 90's I used to work in the golfing industry. I engineered graphite golf shafts for a lot of major golf companies; Callaway, Taylor Made, Lynx to name a few through another company I worked for. I hated golf, never liked it, but the work was fun and it paid the bills, but the fringe benefit is that you got to go out on the golf course a lot and test out the shafts. Also, I met a ton of golf pro's and I met guys like Mickelson, Couples, Singh in my time with that company. Mickelson is a genuinely nice guy. He has that kinda dorky vibe, but really just a nice guy. I wish him the best wherever he goes only because California and the fed treats people like this with a level of bureacratic indifference.

The state should be paying them for how much money the have brought into the state from the events they brought to it, but nope, the short-sighted bullshit that government employes towards even its most affluent citizens is with disdain and class envy. I hope Mickelson ends up in either Texas or Florida. They would love to have him.

I'll never understand how progressive are able to reconcile reality with their delusions. The simplistic assumption that higher taxes on the wealthiest people will always yield proportionally higher revenues over time is a prime example of the one dimensional thinking that is so common amongst them. It's like they are incapable of considering that there may be economic consequences for removing money from the private sector.

The simplistic assumption that higher taxes on the wealthiest people will always yield proportionally higher revenues over time is a prime example of the one dimensional thinking that is so common amongst them.

I hope you are not referring to me as making this "simplistic assumption." Because if you think I am asserting anything of the sort, your reading comprehension is as bad as Jay's

Chip, realistically, the rich (let's just say millionaires and up for ease of a definition) don't need as much money as they have. Just like you don't need more than one car, or a seven bedroom house, or $100 Lucky Brand jeans when $25 Wranglers from Wal Mart serve the same purpose.

Let's see...I posit people respond to incentives. The link says Britain raises taxes on millionaires. The number of millionaires drops substantially. What happened? Millionaires stopped working in Britain. Saved less in Britain. Invested less in Britain. Moved away from Britain. So Britain lowers the tax rate. The number of millionaires rises substantially. What happened? Millionaires worked more in Britain. Saved more in Britain. Invested more in Britain. Moved (back) to Britain.

Colonel, I don't know what different people's needs are, so I base my conclusions on what I can observe of their behavior.

If someone is still working after becoming rich, then I conclude that he or she "needs" the money, and will therefore work less if taxed at a higher rate. This obviously doesn't apply to inherited wealth.

And I do understand that this distinction is difficult if we roll things back to the originator of the inherited wealth.

Having taken this conservative position, I'll add that the only evidence I'm aware of from the US of tax-rate cuts raising revenue is from the capital gains tax. And that's attributable to the timing of sales of previously held assets.

Every time I see it, I yell "Stop wearing my shoes, Phil Mickelson! Maybe my joint pain would be better if you didn't keep wearing down the soles! Or at least lose a few pounds; it's no wonder my shoes are flat with you smooshing them down all the time!"

I don't know if the increased revenue is from income tax cuts or capital gains cuts. All I know is what the numbers show, and that is increased revenue following the 2003 cuts.

I don't know what the magical sweet spot is for an optimal tax rate. Personally I think a 39% marginal rate is pretty high but I'm not an economist. I do think we could use with a broadening of the tax base versus raising rates. All an increase does is make me re adjust my income which is easier as a business owner than the average worker drone.

The flip side of this discussion is that we simply cannot bring in enough tax revenue to offset the massive spending we are currently in. It's simply out of control.

you forgot about the part of your statement that higher taxes result in lower incentives to "save and invest". I was not arguing that someone who is rich will not move or change his investment strategy to reduce his tax burden. I dispute the contention that a large number of people will work (and earn) less to reduce their tax burden. Mickelson could indeed significantly lower his tax burden by moving to Texas or Florida. But if he just quits working, he will certainly earn less (with almost no impact on the rest of us) than if he just sucked it up and paid his taxes.

Colonel, I also think that a top federal tax rate of 39% is high, particularly when state and local taxes are taken into account.

Some economists like Piketty and Saez claim that the top rate should be the rate that maximizes revenue from the top earners. The basic idea is that their consumption should be valued at zero at the margin by "society". Since I think income is obviously valuable to the people who work to produce it, I reject the idea that we should maximize revenue from the top earners.

The "optimal" tax rate is the one at which the marginal cost of revenue raised by taxation equals the marginal benefit of government spending (at all levels of government). It's been estimated from NZ data that when the top income-tax rate is 40%, then a dollar of revenue must generate $8 of benefit thru government spending to be worthwhile.

Since an 8-to1 benefit/cost ratio seems unlikely to me, I think 40% is too high a top rate. But that's not b/c I think that revenue would be higher at a lower rate.

Milton Friedman is alleged to have said, "If revenue rises when tax rates are cut, then tax rates haven't been cut enough."

Regardless of all the political posturing and point scoring we are making with regard to Mickelson and CA taxes, the bear in California's room is that if enough folks with Mickelson money move out of the state then the balanced budget prediction for California lands in a deep sand trap.

Freder Frederson said...I hope you are not referring to me as making this "simplistic assumption." Because if you think I am asserting anything of the sort, your reading comprehension is as bad as Jay's

Wasn't directed at you specifically (you at least seem to acknowledge the possibility of lower tax rates potentially leading to higher revenues). I was referring more broadly to those class warriors that make up the Democratic elected establishment, most notably our Class Warrior in chief who has spent an inordinate amount of time demagoguing using ingenious phrases like "fair share".

I dispute the contention that a large number of people will work (and earn) less to reduce their tax burden.

Actually, with the tax structure being as progressive as it is, it really doesn't take a 'large number' to make an impact.

Incidently, I just witnessed most of my clients working hard to sell investments and businesses at the end of the year to avoid paying the higher 2013 cap gains tax rate. Even people I know voted for Obama. Even one person I know who signed one of the "please, Mr. President, tax me more" letters did it. It was rampent.

Business owners and 'rich' people can move to make changes quickly. Higher earning 'wage' based workers will change behavior and choices more slowly.

Americans are taxed on world wide income, regardless of domicle (as an American living in London, I know that, I pay taxes n teh UK and US). So no matter where Mickelson lives, he will pay US income taxes.

Zeta-Jones is a Brit. As such, she can avoid British taxes by living in Bermuda. Because her spouse Michael is American, he is (with small exceptions) taxed by the US on all his income wherever he lives. Her income was probably as large as his, so the main tax advantage would have been for her income.

The US system of taxing all Americans on worldwide income is very unusual. An American can not do what Depardeau did and get the same tax result.

39% is not historically low. Historically low is zero, as we have not had an income tax for most of our history.

The issue of what a "fair share" is has nothing to do with fairness and all to do with manipulation and power. There's no way to get a consensus on what is "fair" about a rate because there's no single standard. Everyone gets to create their own.

The main objective should be to avoid levels of taxation that will decrease the economic value of work and enterprise so low that the whole society becomes less able to produce jobs and wealth. That rate is lower than a lot of people think. A rate of 62% clearly makes wealth and job creation more difficult.

The creation of private wealth was supressed from 1932-63, which was the era of very high US taxes. As our rates have gone down starting with the JFK cuts, our wealth creation has increased. This has lead to the largely phony issue of the wealth and income "gaps." There's a gap because the upward potential is now so high.

In the 30's, 40's and 50's capital creation was difficult because of high taxes and those already rich had great advantages because they had the capital. The income gap may have increased, but economic opportunity at all levels is far better now than in the Roosevelt to Kennedy era.

Freder Frederson said...I dispute the contention that a large number of people will work (and earn) less to reduce their tax burden.

...and not only will people work less as a result of higher marginal rates, they will work more faced with lower marginal rates. In fact, if you create revenue neutral tax policy that lowers marginal rates but eliminates tax expenditures (those pesky 'loopholes'), you still get gains in GDP. It's the marginal rate that matters most.

David Price did:http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/david-price-tampa-bay-rays-new-contract-10-million-dollars-new-years-eve-avoids-fiscal-cliff-saves-pitcher-six-figures-011513 Toronto and Montreal had problems because of taxes

I wrote to Prof. Althouse privately, but as one of her most adoring fans, I think she really failed with this blog entry.

1. Phil Mickelson said nothing about leaving the country. The Forbes writer did. After the transcript showed oen of the golf writers jokingly asking Mickelson about "moving to Canada," apparently a la Alec Baldwin.

2. The tax discussion began, as far as I know, with Phil trying to speak intelligently but discretely to the issue of his possibly being part of the constorium to purchase the San Diego Padres. I don't know what Phil's special problems are in that regard (creating that sort of personal liquidity, etc.) but the complaints made against him are far more hysterical than anything he said.

In direct answer to your question - when I was working as a software project manager in New York, 4 Indian-American (from India, not Native Americans) who'd been in the US an average of 10-15 years each, left my team to return to India due to growing opportunities there and decreasing opportunities here. (These were software developers earning an average of $130,000 each.)

I myself, an American-Jew, then turned around and emigrated to Israel and am currently leading software projects in Jerusalem (leaving behind a $180,000 gross salary).

More people than you may think have options. Particularly high level performers in valuable fields.